Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 1:57 AM
40 online now:
Dredge, PaulK (2 members, 38 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,539 Year: 3,576/19,786 Month: 571/1,087 Week: 161/212 Day: 3/25 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   can science accept assertive law?
tesla
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 16 of 78 (444822)
12-31-2007 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by nwr
12-31-2007 12:16 AM


Re: subatomic particles
thanks, that answered my question, this topic may be closed.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nwr, posted 12-31-2007 12:16 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16227
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 17 of 78 (444823)
12-31-2007 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by tesla
12-30-2007 11:49 PM


tesla writes:

the purpose of this thread is to see if science can accept assertive law for scientific inquery.

Maybe you should start by explaining what on earth "assertive law" means.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 11:49 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by tesla, posted 12-31-2007 12:35 AM ringo has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 18 of 78 (444826)
12-31-2007 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by ringo
12-31-2007 12:23 AM


i just wanted to open existence into scientific enquiry.

but existence is a definite statement.

tentative statements are like: may be present, could be present.

but existence is assertive: IS present. IS real.

but nobody wants to define existence. some say it just an idea, but that's not tangible. and to exist is to be a part of existence.

i cant argue it. and most people wont even try to fathom it.

so I'm dropping it. at least in science. and religion isn't scientific enquiry to define it.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ringo, posted 12-31-2007 12:23 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 12-31-2007 12:47 AM tesla has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16227
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 19 of 78 (444827)
12-31-2007 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by tesla
12-31-2007 12:35 AM


tesla writes:

but existence is assertive: IS present. IS real.

Why would existence be "assertive"?

And you still haven't explained what "assertive law" means.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by tesla, posted 12-31-2007 12:35 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by tesla, posted 12-31-2007 1:03 AM ringo has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 20 of 78 (444828)
12-31-2007 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by ringo
12-31-2007 12:47 AM


i can tell you what i meant BY it, yet I'm sure a professor in the English language is laughing somewhere.

i meant by assertive law: a law that is a definite statement.

existence is assertive because it is a definite statement.

that no thing can exist outside of existence. but nothing could be before existence. so existence is first of all things, and would exist singularly under the scientific law "energy cannot be created or destroyed".

but it was argued the law i just quoted , although a law, is tentative.

explaining this goes against what this topic was made for tho.

i was told in a debate that science will not accept "God" because God is not being introduced tentatively. i was arguing that existence and God by definition are one and the same.

this topic may be closed if any admin so wishes. i was given an adequate answer to the question it was asking.

Edited by tesla, : if you saw the post before the edit, your still laughing.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 12-31-2007 12:47 AM ringo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by nwr, posted 12-31-2007 2:19 AM tesla has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Admin, posted 12-31-2007 7:32 AM tesla has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 21 of 78 (444832)
12-31-2007 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by tesla
12-31-2007 1:03 AM


existence is assertive because it is a definite statement.

I am not seeing that definite statement. To me, "existence" is just a word, and thus not a statement. Worse still, it a vague word, so not at all definite.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by tesla, posted 12-31-2007 1:03 AM tesla has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 22 of 78 (444862)
12-31-2007 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by tesla
12-31-2007 1:03 AM


Hi Tesla, this is Percy.

You've proposed five threads, and in each one you end up discussing God and existence. In the if scientists accept God in science, is science destroyed? thread you just said, "i beleive that i found the answeres i was looking for in this debate. it may be closed at any time." But evidently you didn't find the answers you wanted, because you're still making the same arguments here in this thread.

This is why AdminNosy requested you limit the discussion of existence to this thread. We don't need a discussion of a single topic spread out across multiple threads. I can't close that other thread because I was participating in the discussion, but I think it should be closed.

this topic may be closed if any admin so wishes. i was given an adequate answer to the question it was asking.

If that's really how you feel then let me know and then I'll close this thread, too, but no more thread proposals from you about God and existence, okay? This thread never should have been promoted anyway because you never explain what "assertive law" is and you declare a "LAW of existence" without explanation and without supporting evidence or argument.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by tesla, posted 12-31-2007 1:03 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by tesla, posted 12-31-2007 12:41 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
tesla
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 23 of 78 (444917)
12-31-2007 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Admin
12-31-2007 7:32 AM


very well.

i think i took for granted that science defines existence as an idea.

as far as my language goes, i cant hope to understand all the definitions used, and am willing to take any correction, but hope that what I'm saying can be at least understood.

ideas are tentative. (may be...could be)
things are facts to be studied.

let me take the argument if so allowed:

that existence is a thing, and able to be studied.

by this observation:

does what we see, what we smell, what we touch, what we hear, what we taste, exist in an idea?

ideas are not substantial, our senses show us only what is substantial. by this observation, existence is a thing.

if existence was an idea, then the potential would be for what does exist, to not exist. because an idea is not substantial.

a thing can be studied by science.

in conclusion: existence can be studied by science.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Admin, posted 12-31-2007 7:32 AM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 12-31-2007 12:59 PM tesla has responded
 Message 25 by nwr, posted 12-31-2007 1:05 PM tesla has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 24 of 78 (444920)
12-31-2007 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by tesla
12-31-2007 12:41 PM


You've said two things that accurately define science, sort of:

tesla writes:

does what we see, what we smell, what we touch, what we hear, what we taste, exist in an idea?

What you said up until the "exist in an idea" portion makes good sense. Science studies the natural world, the world available to our senses. Science takes for granted that the world of our senses exists. Questions about the reality of existence are philosophical, not scientific.

in conclusion: existence can be studied by science.

When you use the word "existence" it makes your meaning ambiguous. Do you mean the world of our senses, which would be science? Or do you mean the existence of philosophy, such as existentialism and so forth?

ideas are tentative. (may be...could be)
things are facts to be studied.

Keeping things simple, hypotheses are very tentative, theories are tentative, facts that we gather through observation and experiment are certain. It's actually not this simple, but I hesitate to introduce nuances until this point becomes clear.

So science can study anything we can observe, even if we can only observe it indirectly. We can only measure temperature indirectly, using a thermometer. We can only see cells indirectly, using a microscope. We can only detect electrons indirectly via special instruments.

But science cannot study things we can't observe. To study God science requires that he be in some way observable. Science will never assume the existence of anything for which there is no evidence. And defining God as a synonym for all of reality is just playing word games, plus most Christians wouldn't agree with you anything, since they believe that God transcends reality.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by tesla, posted 12-31-2007 12:41 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by tesla, posted 12-31-2007 1:12 PM Percy has responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 25 of 78 (444922)
12-31-2007 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by tesla
12-31-2007 12:41 PM


i think i took for granted that science defines existence as an idea.

Perhaps "idea" is a basic concept in philosophy. It isn't studied by science. Maybe psychologists would be interested in studying the idea of "idea", if they could only work out how to study it.

that existence is a thing, and able to be studied.

"Existence" is a vague term, used with multiple meanings. That's why none of us has a clue as to what you are really trying to talk about.

Science studies what can be measured, what can be tested in the laboratory.

You are taking the vague term "existence", and asserting that it is a thing. You have provided no basis nor justification for that assertion.

From Wikipedia: "Reification (fallacy), fallacy of treating an abstraction as if it were a real thing."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by tesla, posted 12-31-2007 12:41 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by tesla, posted 12-31-2007 1:17 PM nwr has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 26 of 78 (444923)
12-31-2007 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
12-31-2007 12:59 PM


quote:
When you use the word "existence" it makes your meaning ambiguous. Do you mean the world of our senses, which would be science? Or do you mean the existence of philosophy, such as existentialism and so forth?

currently the only process to explore existence , even though it is a thing, is by reason.

since you cannot run an experiment on it (yet), then you will not accept it as science.

but it is a "thing" and i believe that using science to explore it with reason based on scientific laws would bring about a better definition of the "thing" that we exist in.

so unless this post has convinced any scientist that its worth exploring, then let it be left to philosophy, and i withdraw my argument with science.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 12-31-2007 12:59 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 12-31-2007 3:01 PM tesla has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 27 of 78 (444925)
12-31-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by nwr
12-31-2007 1:05 PM


quote:
Reification (fallacy), fallacy of treating an abstraction as if it were a real thing."

OK, so how would you define someone taking a real thing and treating it as an abstraction?

existence as an abstraction is absurd.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by nwr, posted 12-31-2007 1:05 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 12-31-2007 1:22 PM tesla has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 28 of 78 (444927)
12-31-2007 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by tesla
12-31-2007 1:17 PM


existence as an abstraction is absurd.

To the contrary, existence as a real thing is absurd.

Maybe what you mean by "existence" is a real thing. If so, then it is different from what most other people mean by "existence." You have failed to be clear on what it is that you are actually talking about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by tesla, posted 12-31-2007 1:17 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by tesla, posted 12-31-2007 1:30 PM nwr has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 29 of 78 (444932)
12-31-2007 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by nwr
12-31-2007 1:22 PM


if something that exists to be abstract, then how can you have any faith that anything is at all?

if that which does exist is not abstract, then neither can the noun describing what something exists "in" be abstract.

car exists in garage-garage exists in house-house exists in earth-earth exists in solar system-solar system exists in galaxy-galaxy exists in existence.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 12-31-2007 1:22 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 12-31-2007 1:41 PM tesla has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 30 of 78 (444935)
12-31-2007 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by tesla
12-31-2007 1:30 PM


if something that exists to be abstract, then how can you have any faith that anything is at all?

Just about any mathematician will tell you that the number 3 exists, and that the number 3 (like all numbers) is abstract.

car exists in garage-garage exists in house-house exists in earth-earth exists in solar system-solar system exists in galaxy-galaxy exists in existence.

It's that last part, the "exists in existence", which makes the whole sentence incoherent.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by tesla, posted 12-31-2007 1:30 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by tesla, posted 12-31-2007 1:45 PM nwr has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019